vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>degree of error, or it is not scientifically accepted). I don't know
>>the actual numbers, but I don't think that the modern computer models
>>have errors of more than several centimeters in the orbits of planets
>>around the Sun; the calculation is very accurate and includes all
>>sorts of Newtonian and relativistic corrections. 
>
>I HAVE DONE SOME OF THE MODELS MYSELF ON THE COMPUTER!  

With all due respect, I don't think you have the mental capacity to
even understand how the NASA computer models are done. I for sure
don't, and I've studied physics for a while, before abandoning it and
dedicating my life to God. In my time I could get a reasonably good
idea about those calculations, I could even perform some simpler ones,
but now it's pure SF for me. The thing is damn accurate, practically
flawless. If a comet hits Jupiter, they can tell you how this will
affect the orbits of every known object in the solar system. They use
the gravity of the planets to accelerate spacecrafts with complete
accuracy. It's not based on speculations, because if it were so, it
wouldn't work, and it works damn well.

>They ASSUME conditions on earth apply to conditions in ALL of space.
>They ASSUME conditions on earth are similar to conditions on other
>planets.
>They ASSUME the formulas that they use are accurate for all time,
>place, and circumstance.
>etc.etc.

That is not completely true, it was true before Einstein and those
after him, but it's not true now. Today's physics and mathematics are
much more flexible and dependent on the circumstances.

>Let me give you one example:  Let's say you see a star in the sky.
>They use the brightness factor in some equations to determine the
>distance. So how does one tell the difference between a star that is
>nearby with higher intensity of light than a star that is far away
>with low internal intensity?  

It's a good question, and I can't remember the answer, I would have to
go through the books and remember how it's done; it's not just the
brightness, it's the spectrum, spectral shift (usually red) which
gives us the speed relative to the observer, there's the lightspeed as
the constant, and lots of other factors; I can't calculate it, but
there are people who can. Those factors that you've mentioned are
valid in extreme examples, but in most cases the spectral analysis can
give us very detailed answers, if some basic assumptions are correct.
(i.e. that c=const.)

>Anyway, I have thrown away most of their
>garbage, but if you post your equations here and tell me how they are
>not assuming many conditions, then we can have an intellectual
>discussion.

You are also assuming many things. You are saying that scientists use
the imperfect senses and the imperfect minds to observe. That is true,
but it is even more true for you when you read Srimad Bhagavatam.
First, how do you know who wrote it and why? You don't know. How do
you know that it isn't just a sophisticated lie (some truths, some
lies, just enough to trick you)? You don't know. How can you check
that things said in there are true? You can't. Everything that you
base on Srimad Bhagavatam is just a mental speculation, a belief that
something makes sense and something doesn't, and that belief is based
on your imperfect mind, and soul attached to the lower material
qualities and lower senses. Basically, you don't know anything.
Scientists are at least honest (they should be, at least), they say
that they don't know anything about the world, that they are trying to
figure it out, and they didn't get any answers from anyone. They don't
even believe that their senses observe the real world, they know very
well the limitations of the senses, and they are able to produce the
amplifiers for the senses and the mind - Hubble Space Telescope,
tunneling microscopes that can see and move individual atoms (and
write "IBM" with them), radars and computers. It's all still
imperfect, but it's better than nothing, much better than mere
assumptions based on a scripture, that can never be verified, but only
believed in.

>>The simpler theory is the one that explains ALL THE OBSERVATIONS in
>>the SIMPLEST possible way. This means that two basic conditions must
>>be met for a theory to be accepted as good: it must explain everything
>>that is known, and it must do it in a simpler way than the alternative
>>theory. Einstein's theory explained everything that the Newton's
>>theory could explain, and it also explained some things that Newton's
>>theory _couldn't_ explain - for instance an error in Mercury's orbit
>>caused by the timespace bend caused by the proximity of the Sun's mass
>>- and therefore it's simply a better theory. 
>
>No, they accepted Einstein and later on found more observations.  They

There was a full solar eclipse in the pre-WW2 times, and there was an
observation of the gravity lensing, and Einstein's special theory of
relativity (the early version) was the only one capable of explaining
the phenomenon; there was also a mismatch between the observed Mercury
orbit and the Newtonian calculations, and again Einstein was the only
one with the theory capable of explaining it exactly. Basically, those
two things were the reason for its acceptance; combined with the
famous e=mc^2, which is just a small derivation from the theory, and
gave the theoretical explanation of the nuclear energy, and the defect
of mass. The theory is just wonderful, it is simple, very universal
and poetically balanced, and that's why the scientists love it. There
still isn't much to be added to it, except for the attempts to make a
GUT, a quantum theory of gravity, which will supposedly to unite
Planck, Heisenberg and Einstein.

>did not apply Occam's rule when they accepted Einstein.  Even now,
>when a particle is accelerated close to the speed of light or
>theoretically equal to it, they claim it follows Einstein's theory
>rather than Newton's laws.  But they never accelerated particles close
>to the speed of light until recently.  And THEY STILL HAVE NOT reached
>the speed of light, so why did they accept Einstein's theory back when
>they had no observations or evidence???  

Einstein's theory is proven hundreds of times every day in the
accelerators around the world; his concept of the energy turning to
mass is the basic foundation of those experiments; his anticipation of
the relativistic time shift was also proven experimentally. 

>And if Einstein's theory is
>more accurate for a greater number of phenomenon it means NEWTON was
>wrong!  

No, actually those theories are both correct but they aren't
interested in the same aspects of the reality, Newton's theory can be
seen as a special case of Einstein's theory applied to the isotropic
timespace.

>So how do you know Einstein's theory is reality????

I don't, but it's better than the alternative explanations. 

>>ground in physics. As for the Newtonian physics, it's still good if
>>you don't travel too fast and don't get too close to the black holes.
>>It isn't abandoned, it's simply corrected in the extremes by discovery
>>of some other laws of nature that act in such extremes. 
>
>So is it possible that they are completely wrong and their is superior
>model that explains the current phenomenon and more???  

Yes, it is possible.

>That's what
>they are telling us- that what we *know* now can change with a better
>equation.  

Of course, that's how it works. We have something less perfect and
then we improve it, or reject it for an entirely different approach.
It's the learning curve, we don't claim to know all the answers, we're
trying to figure them out gradually.

>This means that the equation itself is not a reflectance of
>reality but their speculation based on their biased sample of
>observations.  

Maybe, but if it isn't based on reality it can't be proven by
experiment and thus it fails the scientific method of approval, and is
rejected. It can thus be said that everything that can be
experimentally proven is based on reality.

>>If we have imperfect senses, we invent a doppler radar and similar
>>gadgets. There are gadgets like computerized color doppler ultrasound
>>scanner, which can observe the blood flow in a fetus inside a womb,
>>with such precision that would make your jaw drop. Our senses aren't
>>infallible, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their field of
>>application...
>
>So can you say you are observing reality or something that the doppler
>radar is reporting???  

Why are you using the increasingly greater number of question marks?
Is that supposed to make me question harder, or take you more
seriously?

If the doppler radar's reports were in serious disagreement with
reality, it wouldn't be used. However, it is true that the radar can
be wrong in its assessment of the situation, because it is just
another physical sense, although more sophisticated in some respects
compared to the human senses. It is fallible, but represents an
improvement. With it, you can see underground objects, you can analyze
the spectrum of some object and determine some qualities of the
material, and it can be used to visually observe the flow of blood
within the body, telling you even the temperature of blood in each
blood vessel. Its results can be tested with other methods, and that's
how it's determined if they're true or false.

>You have faith that the doppler radar is giving
>accurate readings.  

Yes. For instance it tells you that there's an underground river at
some place. You can dig and see if there really is a river, and thus
experimentally prove its existence. It isn't always based on faith,
and the faith is well argumented, because if you see that it works
well in nine cases, if it tells you something in the tenth case,
you'll be very inclined to take it seriously. It isn't all built on
clouds, you know.

>Let's stick to one point at a time: in astronomy,
>how do you know that the conditions of the doppler radar apply equally
>well in space and other planets?

It uses the doppler effect, which basically says that the spectrum of
the objects that move towards you shifts to violet, and the spectrum
of the objects that move away from you shifts to red. The example of
that is an ambulance car, if you heard its siren while passing you by
- the sound becomes deeper as it moves away. That effect is universal
for all the waves, including the electromagnetic waves. That is one of
the main proofs for the wave nature of the light. Depending on the
specific conditions and the environment, the computer in the radar
(which is the main thing, since the picture is the computer-made
analysis of the observation) and the sensory equipment (ultrasound,
sound or EM spectrum) have to be adjusted accordingly - the radar
mounted on the space shuttle, that scans the underground objects using
the microwaves isn't the same as the scanner used in medicine, but the
Doppler effect and the Fourier's analysis are universal. (Damire, ako
Ti se da, dopuni me ovdje malo, lagano sam tanak na tom
hardveru/Damir, if you feel like it, fill me in a bit here, I'm a bit
thin with that hardware).

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net